Slashdot Mirror
Indiana Tries to Pass Game Law Again
phaedo00 writes "Ars Technica has posted their take on Indiana's newest attempt at passing a game law that seeks to restrict the sale of violent video games. This, despite that fact that similar legislation has a track record of failing in every state it has been proposed in. From the article: 'The state capitol, Indianapolis, was one of the first cities in the nation to try and strike out at violent video games, first going after arcades and other entertainment vendors back in 2000. The quest ended up where they all do: in front of a judge, and left for dead. Now that California, Illinois, and Michigan have all suffered astounding defeats in their attempts to address PC and console game sales, Indiana wants to join the ranks of the failures.'"
It's a very good thing that the United States has a system of judicial review, wherein legislative folly can be overturned by courts. HOWEVER, there's a downside. Legislators know that they can pass anything they want, since their mistakes are subject to being overturned anyway. This lets them legislate recklessly. It's a free pass to allow them to pander to the religious right, for instance, by passing laws that will sound good to the party "base", and getting a double benefit by being able to rail against "activist judges" who are predictably bound by law and precedent.
Pandering to their "base" is their job. If they didn't represent their constituents, they wouldn't have a job any more. Judicial review exists as a system of checks so ensure the majority does not violate the rights of the minority.
But I do agree with you, it would be nice if legislators could be impeached for introducing laws that violate people's rights.
look! ive play all teh quake and gta gamez and im not stupider than any1 else i kno... and if u belive it amkes ppl crazy or sumthin i just hav 1 thing to say u... im gonna fucking eat ur children!! yea u heard me right... im gonna do that and then eat ur fuckin ears like mike tyson and kill hookers like they do in gta... omg thats awesome lol dont u think
so u fuckin losers get a life video gamez dont affect u!!!
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
This, despite that fact that similar legislation has a track record of failing in every state it has been proposed in.
This will certainly get modded into oblivion. But the fact that gay marraige laws and gay marraige amendents were defeated in all 11 states which had them on the 2004 ballot has not stopped people from trying to get those laws passed. Everyone has something near and dear to his (or her) heart that he (or she) would really like to see change.
Trigger the Rapture. They'll all be gone and we'll get all their stuff!
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
What was that Asshat?
Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
Quoth the replyee: Pandering to their "base" is their job.
No, representing their constituents is a politician's job. Their party base (which I assume is the "base" you refer to) represents only a tiny portion of said constituents.
So by pandering to their "base", they are NOT doing their jobs, they are serving the interests of a very small minority. Ergo, in this case, judicial review serves to protect the interests of the MAJORITY. The special interest groups don't like that, because then they don't get what they want. So they whine and moan about the "activist judges".
I could go on, but this s*** irritates me, and I don't like being irritated.
If a law like this were to pass, the state would be hurt in the bank account for it. Pair that with the fact that you arent protecting kids from these games, you are only forcing them to get them through other means.
The state will lose a decent amount just from sales tax from these games and all the while kids are still buying the games online and givin money to out of state companies.
Nothing really helps these motions along, the more you look at it, the more you laugh at the proposition.
Invexi - a Phoenix, AZ based web design and web development company.
You fool, you silly fool. The Amouth (879122) post is intentionally mis-spelled to discredit Liberal America.
More specifically, it's part of a plot to make all you Freedom of Speech nutters, Homosexual Marriage supporters, Abortion Baby Killer advocates and Water Fluoridation practitioners look ignorant, uneducated, and stupid. (You gotta admit - pretty good work).
879122 is with a branch of the NSA PR Office and works with cookie dissemination ... and please gimme my off-topic hit here.
Drinking age laws are, like video game legislation, not suitable as a substitute for proper parenting, although when properly handled are invaluable tools to good parents. I was more than mature enough to watch R-rated movies when I was sixteen, and my parents agreed. Unfortunately, the letter of the law meant that even though I could drive and pay taxes, I couldn't watch a horror flick on the big screen.
If you ask me, it all comes down to hypocrisy. If you consume illegal substances, how do you expect your children to not desire the same thing? If you watch violent movies, how do you expect your child to not want to watch violent movies... or to play a violent video game, which is pretty much the same thing?
The job of parents in this world has to be as much to prepare their children as to shelter them.
AC: Only on slashdot... could the sentence "My hovercraft is full of eels." be moderated "+4, Insightful
Far be it from me to instruct you guys - as Americans - on the use of American English, for I am a Brit and as such there are sure to be others better qualified to make the observation I am about to make, but in the absence of such, I humbly submit as follows:
It's "capital", not "capitol". Go. Check now. Go on. I am fortunate enough to have a copy of the Oxford American Dictionary only a keypress away, which defines "capitol", or rather "Capitol" as:
Thus the usage in the submitter's blurb - "the state capitol, Indianapolis" - is incorrect, as, unless I am very much mistaken, the building implied by the term "capitol" is not named "Indianapolis". I presume the submitter intended the wording "state capital", and only namedropped Indianapolis after a comma for the benefit of international readers like myself who, unlike Americans, are sometimes unfamiliar with certain of the state capitals. Otherwise, if "capitol" was intended, might I suggest "the state capitol, (in|located in|situated in) Indianapolis". Incidentally, it is worth noting that the word "capitol" does not really exist in British English.
:)
The British are wont to decry the ill effect America has had on the English language. At least try to prove them wrong in matters concerning your own coinages. This is the second time this has happened this week, if memory serves!
iqu
(N.B. The tone of this post is playful. It is not intended to invite lengthy flames. If you do not understand British humour, think twice before replying.)
A spokesperson said "It is a basic fact that any adult who says someone under the age of 17 can't do something is a fucking fascist bastard and should be hunted down like a dog."
They added that a more reasonable way of handling any problems parents might have about what material their children are viewing is to follow them around 24 hours a day and engage in random searches of their rooms and clothing. "That's taking your responsibilities seriously and not just handing them over to the Police State", he said.
Next week Ars Technica will be reviewing conversion kits which allow children to operate up to compact-sized cars and discussing plans to "get The Man out of kids' faces" when it comes to driving licencing.
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
"It would be nice if legislators could be impeached for introducing laws that violate people's rights."
They can, its called election day.
Unfortunately there are far too many people in this country who are all too willing to violate the rights of others. They don't care if some "other" gets stepped on as long as they avoid the boot. When individuals and groups fight for their rights, and enjoy adequate political representation to ensure that their rights are protected, then everything is fine. The problem is that those groups that do lack adequate political representation will subsequently suffer from a lack of legal protection. It doesn't matter if you're talking about young people, black people, American Indians, or any other group. Jim crow laws existed specifically because blacks in the south lacked the political power to prevent and overturn them. Likewise the legal drinking age is 21 in every state except Louisianna because 18 year olds lacked the political representation to prevent MADD from usurping their rights as adults. Jim Crow ended not because some white liberals from the north decided they wanted to change things. Jim Crow came to an end when blacks in the south decided that things had to change and began working to secure and defend their rights as citizens of this country.
The only way that your civil rights are ensured is through political power and the political action that creates and reaffirms that power. So if some politician tries to strip you of your rights and freedom, the answer is not to expect some external agency to hold him or her to account. The answer is to organize against this politician and work to have them thrown out of office.
Remember, freedom isn't free. If you're not willing to fight for it, then you've already thrown it away.
As for actual impeachment, what you're talking about is possible. If a politician supports a bill that violates the rights of his or her constituents, then he or she is violating his oath of office. Now convincing people that this politician should be impeached is of course a different story. But calling for impeachment, and screaming loud and clear exactly why you want them impeached, is a very good way of ensuring that even if they do manage to get re-elected they won't try to pull that kind of crap again.
Lee
Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.
Parent is correct.
I want a bumper sticker that states: "In case of Rapture your car will be not be empty, because I'll be driving it."
"There are no facts, only interpretations." --Friedrich Nietzsche.
>I'd like to see Legislators prorate taxes for Gay couples.
I'd prefer to see NO tax implications associated with marriage, at all.
Let existing laws govern property and child custody, and don't let marriage be an institution of the state, period.
The whole concept of marriage favors the "normal", the attractive, the wealthy, and the religious, and brutally excludes others. I would challenge the state sponsorship of marriage on equal protection grounds.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
Then why not get rid of the drinking age laws? Parents can watch their kids to make sure they don't drink.
Great idea. Glad to see an American who isn't afraid to follow in the footsteps of most of the rest of the first world.
Yes, we *could* keep M and AO video games out of the hands of minors, at the request of the government. But think about that for a moment. Government would then be deciding what's best for our children, rather than parents. And if you agree with this law, then should government pass a similar law involving books?
One of my favorite books is Slaughterhouse Five. It's violent, sexual, but has a strong message. And I read it when I was fifteen. If Slaughterhouse Five were a video game, this law would prevent minors from buying it.
If we can restrict video games from minors, we can restrict movies, books, and other forms of entertainment and culture from minors. And then, we can control what the future generation thinks, and how it acts. If you hate Big Government, you should hate this law. If you love freedom, you should hate this law.